DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/21/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 9-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0053789).
Regarding claim 7: Lin discloses a unit for performing pattern cutting process on a paper/sheet comprising an initial extruder marking unit (Fig. 7; via marking assembly) with machine head followed by a performing cutting assembly (Fig. 8; via cutting assembly using the machine head) provided with means to cut over the one profile marked by the marking unit (paragraph 0049; via marker pen 663).
Lin does not suggest the claimed use of creasing unit with extruder to for a pre-set creasing pattern nor a creasing tool to form a corresponding folding line. However, Lin uses the same technique of having a unit with for pre-setting pattern (via marking assembly) followed by further forming tool (via cutting assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have substituted Lin’s pre-setting-marking assembly and/or the followed forming cutting assembly, with other different assemblies such as extruder of pre-set creasing and creasing tool, in order to ensure the integrity of the formation of the creasing pattern as desired instead of the cutting pattern (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 9: wherein the creasing tool comprises a first main body which has, at a proximal end thereof, a wheel which comprises a rolling band on which the groove is obtained (Figs. 12-13; via wheel 652 with grooved portions on both sides of the extended out cutting rib); and the extruder comprises a second main body, which has a nozzle at a proximal end thereof, see for example (Figs. 7-8; via shown second body 632 of nozzle shape 632).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the creasing tool comprises a creasing tool main body; a wheel arranged at a proximal end of the creasing tool main body (Figs. 12-13; via wheel 652 on main body 653), the wheel comprising a rolling band on which the groove is obtained (Figs. 12-13; via central extending out rib considered as band, while both sides around the rib form groove shape); the groove is obtained centrally in the rolling band (via both sides of extended rib 652 form groove shape), see annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: wherein the creasing tool comprises a creasing tool main body (Figs. 12-13; via wheel 652 on main body 653); a wheel arranged at a proximal end of the creasing tool main body (Figs. 12-13; via wheel 652 on main body 653), the wheel comprising a rolling band on which the groove is obtained (Figs. 12-13; via central extending out rib considered as band, while both sides around the rib form groove shape); the wheel is rotatably and detachably fastened to the main body of the creasing tool by interlocking coupling of a rolling pin with a fork, which extends from the proximal end of the main body (Figs. 12-13; via cutting tool 652 locked into fork 653).
Regarding claim 12: wherein, at a distal end of the main body of the extruder and/or of the creasing tool, an annular relief is obtained for interlocking coupling in a tool support of the tool-holder head (Figs. 12-13; via the shown mechanism of positioning tool 652).
Regarding claim 14: Lin discloses a creasing unit comprising:
an extruder configured to extrude at least one profile according to a pre-set creasing pattern, see for example (Figs. 7-8 & 11-13; via the shown marking assembly and/or paragraph 0042; “the pinch roller cutter head assembly…to facilitate folding of the paper”);
and a creasing/cutting tool, the creasing tool further comprising:
a wheel rotatable about an axis of rotation (Figs. 12-13; via the shown wheel) ;
a rolling band arranged at a consistent radius from the axis of rotation (via central extended out rib of 652);
a groove arranged on the rolling band and radially inward from the rolling band (via both sides of rib 652 in the form of a groove).
Lin may not suggest the claimed use of creasing unit with extruder to for a pre-set creasing pattern nor a creasing tool to form a corresponding folding line. However, Lin uses the same technique of having a unit with for pre-setting pattern (via marking assembly) followed by further forming tool (via cutting assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have substituted Lin’s pre-setting-marking assembly and/or the followed forming cutting assembly, with other different assemblies such as extruder of pre-set creasing and creasing tool, in order to ensure the integrity of the formation of the creasing pattern as desired instead of the cutting pattern (paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7, 9-12, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection adjusted to address the newly added claim and amendments.
Applicant appears to make similar arguments to the one previously filed prior to the latest filed FR. Therefore, the Office maintaining the same response to those arguments.
Being that said, the Office to clarify the response to the main argued upon issue of pointing out to the applied art of Lin ‘789 as not showing a creasing tool nor groove on the wheel. The Office as explained above, believes that ‘789 broadly referring to capability of forming crease lines (paragraph 0042; “the pinch roller cutter head assembly…to facilitate folding of the paper”). The Office further provide another explanation presuming that ‘789 is not suggesting as argued upon a use of scoring tool, explained that ‘789 uses the same technique of having a unit for pre-setting pattern (via marking assembly) followed by further forming tool (via cutting assembly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have substituted Lin’s pre-setting-marking assembly and/or the followed forming cutting assembly, with other different assemblies such as extruder of pre-set creasing and creasing tool, in order to ensure the integrity of the formation of the creasing pattern as desired instead of the cutting pattern (paragraph 0004).
Further, the annotated figure below shows the claimed groove-recess portions in both sides of the extended out rib (band) 652 on the wheel.
PNG
media_image2.png
331
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant continue to argue the made 103 rejections, pointing out that the applied art of Lin ‘789 fails to teach or suggest the claimed “creasing tool provided with a groove adapted to couple, in use, with the at least one profile extruded by the extruder”. Applicant pointed out that ‘789 fails to disclose a creasing unit comprising a creasing tool, adding that modifying ‘789 to switch the disclosed tools by creasing tools, would not be obvious as indicated by the Office Action.
The Office maintaining the same response filed on the latest Office Action. The Office continue to believe that and previously suggested by the filed Office Action, ‘789 suggests the use of units for the purpose of forming a pre-setting pattern, via marking assembly followed by further forming tool via cutting assembly. Adding to that ‘789 indeed suggest the use of such tools to “the pinch roller cutter head assembly 65 is used for pressing an indentation on the paper to facilitate folding of the paper”, paragraph 0042. It is noted that pressing on the paper to facilitate folding is known to those skilled in the art to be equivalent to the claimed “crease”.
In respect to applicant’s argument that the applied art ‘789 cannot provide the claimed groove “adapted to couple, in use, with the at least one profile extruded by the extruder” is not given much patentable weight as those are intended use limitations of the claimed “groove”. It is noted that since the applied art indeed using and suggesting a “groove” portion, what is it used for to be as claimed or for different purpose is an intended use and not given much patentable weight. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applied art of ‘789 related to the same claimed invention area, pre-forming pressing and/or creasing on paper to form fold lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted 789’s pre-setting-marking assembly and/or the followed forming cutting assembly, with other different assemblies such as extruder of pre-set creasing and creasing tool (similar to the suggested use of pressing/cutting tools, paragraph 0042), in order to ensure the integrity of the formation of the creasing pattern as desired instead of the cutting pattern (paragraph 0004).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731